Location: Not protected by the Mods...I mean Mob. Take your best shot! Joined: 09.01.2012
Mar 7 @ 3:54 PM ET
Forwards don't naturally defend, but all players have to be adept at skating well both backwards and forward. Mike Richards used to play the point at times, and Read did for a little bit in 2012. Generally defensemen play the point, but many forwards are able to skate backwards and defend adequately (Bergeron and Datsyuk come to mind as elite ones). - jmatchett383
I'm sorry this is not true. We weren't playing an umbrella system when Mike Richards was playing the point consistently next to Kimmo Timonen and even if I am wrong about this, Kimmo Timonen was always in the middle of the high point of the umbrella. Timonen was always first man back in case a possible short handed chance accused against.
If anyone believes Voracek would be capable of running the power play next to Giroux the same as Timonen, Streit and Gostisbehere have, I think they are dead wrong. At that position you need that natural ability to skate backwards, possibly take away the passing lane in case of a two on one against and make defensive plays that I don't think come natural to most forwards including Jake Voracek who is far from a defensive center such as Richards, Bergeron and Datsyuk. Not to mention the strongest point shot should come from the middle of the umbrella, which isn't apart of Voracek's arsenal.
Location: Its fun to do bad things, MT Joined: 05.17.2010
Mar 7 @ 3:56 PM ET
I'm sorry this is not true. We weren't playing an umbrella system when Mike Richards was playing the point consistently next to Kimmo Timonen and even if I am wrong about this, Kimmo Timonen was always in the middle of the high point of the umbrella. Timonen was always first man back in case a possible short handed chance accused against.
If anyone believes Voracek would be capable of running the power play next to Giroux the same as Timonen, Streit and Gostisbehere have, I think they are dead wrong. At that position you need that natural ability to skate backwards, possibly take away the passing lane in case of a two on one against and make defensive plays that I don't think come natural to most forwards including Jake Voracek who is far from a defensive center such as Richards, Bergeron and Datsyuk. Not to mention the strongest point shot should come from the middle of the umbrella, which isn't apart of Voracek's arsenal. - SuperSchennBros
I'm just curious where stamkos will fit in on our PP.
couldn't disagree more- you want to make the current team as good as possible now without sacrificing the future. In this case, you would accomplish that. - orangekrush2010
What is necessary to make the trade is, by definition, sacrificing part of the future
Hextall makes that trade and then Sanheim is the D-prospect that turns out the best? He then just gave up a 19 year old top pairing defenseman for what? 7-8 years of Jacob Trouba?
The model is in place, the plan is being executed. No sense cutting corners now
Location: Its fun to do bad things, MT Joined: 05.17.2010
Mar 7 @ 4:11 PM ET
What is necessary to make the trade is, by definition, sacrificing part of the future
Hextall makes that trade and then Sanheim is the D-prospect that turns out the best? He then just gave up a 19 year old top pairing defenseman for what? 7-8 years of Jacob Trouba?
The model is in place, the plan is being executed. No sense cutting corners now - YuenglingJagr
how is that sacrificing the future when you see Trouba as part of that future?
Location: Not protected by the Mods...I mean Mob. Take your best shot! Joined: 09.01.2012
Mar 7 @ 4:15 PM ET
I'm just curious where stamkos will fit in on our PP. - orangekrush2010
If we are luckt enough to get Stamkos, you adjust. During the 2009-10 season, Jeff Carter, Danny Briere and Scott Hartnell began the the first half of that season together we Danny B on RW and Carter at center. They also played on the PP together with Hartnell in the crease and the two right handed linemates of Briere and Carter circling down low on the left half wall. If I remember correctly but I'm sure we all remember the famous Danny B wrap around from behind the net.
What is necessary to make the trade is, by definition, sacrificing part of the future
Hextall makes that trade and then Sanheim is the D-prospect that turns out the best? He then just gave up a 19 year old top pairing defenseman for what? 7-8 years of Jacob Trouba?
The model is in place, the plan is being executed. No sense cutting corners now - YuenglingJagr
Except that Trouba helps you both now and in the future. Again, it's not trading first rounders for 35 year old Adam Oates. It's trading for a proven, young, top pair RHD who is just ending his ELC. He's only 3 years older than Sanheim and has already proven that he can be a top defenseman at the highest level.
Would you trade Hagg for Klingberg? If so, that's also, by your definition, sacrificing part of the future. But I bet Hexy would do it, because Klingberg is tons better and still young.
i don't know who tried making that point but thats ridiculous. Forwards definitely can skate backwards well. It's a skill you learn to do well at a very young age.
i don't know who tried making that point but thats ridiculous. Forwards definitely can skate backwards well. It's a skill you learn to do well at a very young age. - orangekrush2010
Yeah, I was under the impression that even ECHL players are adept at skating well both backwards and forwards. Now, a forward may not be good at playing defensively, but that has little to do with his skating ability.
how is that sacrificing the future when you see Trouba as part of that future? - orangekrush2010
Trouba is 3 years older and reportedly wants 6 million a year (obviously starting high). What makes you so sure he will be better than Sanheim to be worth that?
The discussion is obviously a case of "it depends on the return" but simply trading a prospect for a legit top 4 guy doesnt happen. Even the "terrible return" the Bruins got for Hamilton could've looked great if they drafted differently.
Let's not forget the Flyers drafted Sanheim in the 1st round. They expect him to be worth it. They think he will be an impact player in the NHL so it would be poor asset management to trade him for less than that
Except that Trouba helps you both now and in the future. Again, it's not trading first rounders for 35 year old Adam Oates. It's trading for a proven, young, top pair RHD who is just ending his ELC. He's only 3 years older than Sanheim and has already proven that he can be a top defenseman at the highest level.
Would you trade Hagg for Klingberg? If so, that's also, by your definition, sacrificing part of the future. But I bet Hexy would do it, because Klingberg is tons better and still young. - jmatchett383
I think youre right about proven and RHD, but he is not necessarily a top pair D yet. I am really confused why he is somehow considered a top defenseman already? How are you coming to that conclusion?
Is there anybody that wouldn't trade Hagg for Klingberg? That is a pointless statement because you aren't talking about equal value. Just like Sanheim won't get you Trouba.
Trouba is 3 years older and reportedly wants 6 million a year (obviously starting high). What makes you so sure he will be better than Sanheim to be worth that?
The discussion is obviously a case of "it depends on the return" but simply trading a prospect for a legit top 4 guy doesnt happen. Even the "terrible return" the Bruins got for Hamilton could've looked great if they drafted differently.
Let's not forget the Flyers drafted Sanheim in the 1st round. They expect him to be worth it. They think he will be an impact player in the NHL so it would be poor asset management to trade him for less than that - YuenglingJagr
If Trouba wants $6M/year, that's just ridiculous, and I'm a big Trouba fan. $4M I can see.
Yes, they drafted Sanheim in the first round. However, the emergence of Ghost as a legit scoring threat and the drafting of Provorov since then makes Sanheim the most expendable of the big 4. To me, if you can get a proven guy like Trouba (assuming he'll reduce his asking price) for Sanheim, you do it. I like Sanheim, but if he is the cost of acquiring a young, proven, top pair guy like Trouba, I think he's the one you can replace most easily with the other pieces you have.
Location: Its fun to do bad things, MT Joined: 05.17.2010
Mar 7 @ 4:28 PM ET
Trouba is 3 years older and reportedly wants 6 million a year (obviously starting high). What makes you so sure he will be better than Sanheim to be worth that?
The discussion is obviously a case of "it depends on the return" but simply trading a prospect for a legit top 4 guy doesnt happen. Even the "terrible return" the Bruins got for Hamilton could've looked great if they drafted differently.
Let's not forget the Flyers drafted Sanheim in the 1st round. They expect him to be worth it. They think he will be an impact player in the NHL so it would be poor asset management to trade him for less than that - YuenglingJagr
First of all, i didn't know him being 3 years older made him a senior citizen. Second of all, IF Sanheim ends up being as good or better, he will be making that money anyway when it comes time to reup after his ELC. I can't be sure Sanheim won't be better but you can only look at how Trouba is a legit top 2-4 guy and Sanheim is a project that we can't project easily. IF Sanheim ends up better, the margin between the two would likely still be low unless Sanheim becomes Doughty or something.
Except that Trouba helps you both now and in the future. Again, it's not trading first rounders for 35 year old Adam Oates. It's trading for a proven, young, top pair RHD who is just ending his ELC. He's only 3 years older than Sanheim and has already proven that he can be a top defenseman at the highest level.
Would you trade Hagg for Klingberg? If so, that's also, by your definition, sacrificing part of the future. But I bet Hexy would do it, because Klingberg is tons better and still young. - jmatchett383
Hagg for Klingberg is definitely an exaggeration, but you are right.
I also understand trepidation... who's to say Sanheim cant do what Trouba is doing? We are dedicated to trusting what we have done already... why rush it and grab Trouba if you already have a good group coming up.
I said it earlier.. if I am moving Sanheim its for a forward.
I think youre right about proven and RHD, but he is not necessarily a top pair D yet. I am really confused why he is somehow considered a top defenseman already? How are you coming to that conclusion? - YuenglingJagr
Granted, I've only seen him play a little bit, but he's a guy who can play all situations and can play a finesse game as well as a physical game. Now, on Winnipeg, he plays behind Buff and Myers, but that's more of a testament to those guys than a knock on Trouba. In 09/10, Timonen was a second pair player, but that was due to the chemistry of Pronger and Carle. Timonen was still a top-pair player.
Location: Not protected by the Mods...I mean Mob. Take your best shot! Joined: 09.01.2012
Mar 7 @ 4:30 PM ET
Yeah, I was under the impression that even ECHL players are adept at skating well both backwards and forwards. Now, a forward may not be good at playing defensively, but that has little to do with his skating ability. - jmatchett383
Dave Andreychuk couldn't skate backwards at all, so...
Defensemen skate backwards on every rush. Forwards do not.
First of all, i didn't know him being 3 years older made him a senior citizen. Second of all, IF Sanheim ends up being as good or better, he will be making that money anyway when it comes time to reup after his ELC. I can't be sure Sanheim won't be better but you can only look at how Trouba is a legit top 2-4 guy and Sanheim is a project that we can't project easily. IF Sanheim ends up better, the margin between the two would likely still be low unless Sanheim becomes Doughty or something. - orangekrush2010
I think his point is: Why change what we have been doing..
If Sanheim is 2 years away, why Rush it for Trouba who will be making fat cash by then?
We have Ghost, Provorov, Sanheim, Morin, Meyers, and Hagg all projecting to be NHL d-men. Will they all make it? Probably not. Hagg seems the least likely (as of now) to be a top 4 d-man, but a lot can change rather quickly.
